Sam Eide
The Roots of Peacemaking
For this assignment, I chose to attend a lecture called “The Roots of War.” I chose this event because I am deeply interested with searching for the roots of concepts and issues that I find to be important. I believe that, like trees, harmful policies, institutions, systems and behaviors are unable to survive when their roots are severed. So when dealing with issues of social injustice and war I am inclined to focus on what I find to be the initial and deepest causes (roots) of these problems; these causes are often not immediately obvious and are often an ongoing source of fuel for these problems that enable them to persist (or to reoccur, after an apparent resolution or solution). This seems, to me, to be a practical approach because if the roots of a problem remain, no matter how many branches are removed, there is always potential for re-growth.
The lecturer, Michael Klare, began by sharing his opinions about the roots of wars in the past. He began with Mesopotamian war over land and water, and then he went on to speak of the Romans’ need for food and slaves to preserve their empire (though they disguised these needs as a desire to spread their values to other cultures in order to civilize them). Next, he talked about the Europeans’ initial expansion into American continents, and the ensuing warfare waged on the natives, which was fueled mainly by the greed of European monarchs who, above all else, wanted to increase their wealth. Other conflicts that he mentioned had similar themes behind them: the desire for land, resources, wealth, and political power.
Klare went on to
predict that 21st century war would be rooted in economics and
competition over the control of dwindling resources. He has noticed that there is already an
alarming and steady increase of American and Chinese military presence in
With Global
warming influencing water sources and overpopulation increasing demand for
water, he perceives the potential for conflicts over control of water sources
in areas all over the earth (including the
Oil is another
dwindling resource that is increasingly in demand worldwide. He pointed out that the increase in car
purchases in many rapidly developing countries will contribute to humanity
being even more dependent on oil, than we already are, in 2025. He sees inevitable power struggles between
nations over control of oil and the routes necessary for transporting it. Due to the Carter Doctrine of 1980, it is
legally acceptable in the
Klare mentioned a less obvious form of resource conflict that will almost certainly occur: “resource driven migration.” This occurs when people who depend on their local resources are forced to migrate when these resources are exhausted or greatly diminished. Agriculturalists whose water sources are diverted or dried up have no choice but to move their people to somewhere where they will not starve or die of thirst. This type of migration leads to conflicts when the surrounding areas are already occupied; especially when resources are scarce for everyone involved.
My feelings about the lecture were mixed. On the one hand, I felt that the causes of war that he discussed were accurate. But, on the other hand, I think that he simplified the issue of war and left out other root causes, maybe roots that go even deeper. I also felt that he could have expressed the information in ways that would produce more hope and desire to act in his audience. He did include effective strategies for positive change but I felt that they were overshadowed by his emphasis on inevitable suffering and tragedies.
I appreciated his candid wording and his sincere desire to be as realistic as possible, though, personally, I feel that optimistic and hopeful views are more practical than pessimistic and alarmist views. By ‘more practical’ I do not mean ‘more accurate’ necessarily. It is never completely clear how probable suffering and tragedy are as opposed to peace and harmony. The consequences of events and actions cannot be reliably foreseen through reason: there are always far too many factors involved and our understanding of reality is too imperfect to go beyond educated guesses that are based on incomplete knowledge and understanding. Optimism is practical because of its positive effects peoples’ actions, energy levels and motivation, in the present moment. These positive effects, on peoples’ present activities, lead directly to positive influence on the future. Therefore, optimism leads a more positive future and pessimism leads to a more negative future: the creation of humanity’s collective reality originates in each individual’s thoughts and outlook.
Some might argue that alarmist and pessimistic views produce powerful motivation to create change. I do acknowledge that anger and fear are powerful motives that often lead to drastic actions (or an overwhelming sense of discouragement or despair). Though, I wonder if the results of these actions will be truly beneficial in the long run; many people, including me, believe that, according to unavoidable laws of nature, every aspect of a means to create change will be imbedded in the resulting ends. For example, when fear is a motivating force behind any action, then the results of that action will contain a negative aspect that is interrelated to the initial fear and the degree of negativity produced will be directly proportional to the degree of initial fear. I used fear as an example, but it could easily be replaced by any and all motivating factors and methods of action involved in any situation (ex: anger, hatred, greed, violence, apathy, love, goodwill, generosity, patience, care, compassion, and so on). Leo Tolstoy had a strong understanding of the interrelatedness of means and ends: “Since the government’s function is to rule, he argued, it will inevitably use force and never voluntarily give up either power or violence” (Chernus 78).
My belief in the abovementioned law of nature is based on my own life experiences and my personal study of the dynamics of reality and the laws of nature. This study involves carefully paying attention to my intuitive feelings, serious attempts at scientifically and equanimously observing the reality of my physical sensations and putting serious effort into observing my perceptual and conceptual reality with detachment. Also, many people whom I respect and admire have expressed, with conviction, this same belief. Emma Goldman’s beliefs were particularly clear around this issue:
“ … The one thing I am convinced of as I have never been in my life is that the gun decides nothing at all. Even if it accomplishes what it sets out to do—which it rarely does—it brings so many evils in its wake as to defeat its original aim…” and “violence in whatever form never has and probably never will bring constructive results” and “There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another…All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose” (Chernus 67-68).
I
approved of Klare’s suggestions for positive change. He pointed out that we need to change the
popular image of the “good life.” Right
now the dream for the majority of the human race is “unlimited consumerism.” He said that
Like Pragmatists, the roots of war that Klare focused on were primarily political, economic and material:
“According to pragmatists, the way to put ideals into practice is to study how political, economic, and social processes work…Knowing how the processes work is a necessary first step to changing them effectively” (Chernus 80).
I personally like to focus on more subtle and often unconscious attitudes and assumptions that are imbedded in the psychology of individuals and societies. I think that Klare’s approach is valid and important and is concerned mainly with external, circumstantial and environmental factors. I don’t believe that we can accurately assess which factors are most significant with any real certainty, but my tendency is to view internal factors and processes as the roots to external processes and circumstances. So, I see Klare’s roots of war as having their own roots that are even deeper down—deep in the depths of individual psyches. I believe accurate assessments of external circumstances and dynamics are dependent on, and directly proportional, to genuine understanding of our own personal nature. Therefore, I believe that solutions are only as effective as they are rooted in genuine understanding. So, in my opinion, the deepest and most significant roots of war consist of individuals not knowing themselves well enough to assess reality with accuracy.
With genuine self-knowledge comes patience, foresight, compassion, inner harmony, love for all beings, mindfulness, clarity, selflessness, joy, generosity and wisdom. These qualities must be nurtured in humanity as a whole if we are to attain lasting peace. The way I see it, individuals must learn to value and practice self-investigation while maintaining an optimistic perspective that allows them to utilize their energy effectively. When this is viewed as a process that humanity as a whole needs to go through it is especially clear that each little intention, effort and act that increases self-knowledge can be saturated with generosity, goodwill and love for others.